♡ 27 ( +1 | -1 ) Topalov v Fritz Game 7Latest news : Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov now accuses Kramnik of using Fritz 9 to make his moves. Apparently in the games so far, a total of 74% of Kramnik's moves (after the end of the opening theory moves) "agree with the first line of Fritz 9".
♡ 85 ( +1 | -1 ) Really strange#1 I guess that it is pretty normal that most of the moves "agree with the first line of Fritz 9". They are GM after all;
#2 Why Mr. Danailov doesn't give the percentage of agreement for Mr Topalov's moves?
#3 This percentage is quite tributary to the power of the computer (and the program's settings). I'm sure that if I set my CM 10th edition at 10 secs per move it will agree (in postmortem analysis) to 99% of my moves... thus am I cheating?
#4 In one of my last game, postmortem game analysis with CM 10th edition showed that it agreed with about 80% of my moves and 100% of my opponent move... I pretty sure that my opponent wasn't cheating, and he is far from being a GM!
#5 This world championship is becoming such a farce that I want to cry! Mr Topalov team has a really disgusting behaviour... Kids playing in a kinders' garten are more grownup!
♡ 347 ( +1 | -1 ) Hah...So Very-Preposterous ... !That -I- won't even dignify that accusation with a response. Of course there is no predicting Kramnick in the matter since he is a Nice-Guy. But IMHO; IF either contestant cannot beat Fritz, then IMO they should not be World Champion anyway. Just give it to FRITZ then! Whether Edition #9 or 99. *** YET, there are of course Two REAL possibilities for corruption of the play. *** #1) Can we be Certain Kramnick does not have a Stomach-board tattoo? On which he can ink-in piece moves for an AnalysisBoard, like we have here at GK? And #B) Has anyone thought to do a leg inspection? I notice that in addition to using a bathroom ... Kramnick ALSO wears Long-Trowsers! And So, ANYTHING -Could Be- hidden, or 'going-on' there; where WE cannot See! [ JUST Like TheBathroom.] This becomes Especially Suspicious when we Know, he ALSO Wore Long-Pants to defeat Kasparov! And in fact, he has Never played ANY WC games in Bermuda Shorts; AND has ALWAYS avoided playing in the PolarBear Classic Tournament, for players wearing Shorts during mid-Winter, despite the fact it has been held faithfully in Lincoln, Nebraska Every Year for decades~! *** ADDITIONALLY;he has been noted to be Suspiciously careful about Always keeping his trowsers up in public. And if the Topo camp were not so consciencious & proper they might very well have pressed the issue that Some Observers have witnessed firsthand, as Kramnick was Not Ever dropping his drawers in public (where WE could See for ourselves what is Going-on). And IN FACT, he was also seen going to the One Place at the match-site that does not have the needed surveilence, TheBATHROOM, to drop his drawers ... THUS, how can inquiring minds everywhere Know for sure, that there is not Some- thing Going On?! Particularly when One of the match contestants continues to insist upon engaging in provocative behavior, that leaves Men of Goodwill & other Chessplayers everyhere to Wonder. Knowing we Must Wonder, still he taunts & jibes us with his mysterious acts & deeds beyond the board, until we Wonder What, ...WHat, ..WhAT, WHAT,WHAT,WHAAATTTT ISSS HE DOOOING !!?!?! AND HOW does he DO IT !? HOW CAN I MaKe it thRu thE D-d-d-day wIthoUt knOwINgG ... ?!! WHaT'sszzz GG-OINg-g-g O-o-onnn? !! *** WEll ;I've figured it out. FACTORS:BEATING a 2800 player + WC Chess match + 2 Point Lead + Bathroom + no bathroom assistant or monitor + no cameras + Long Pants + Keeps PAnts On = The guy is TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING! *** Thus we ask ourselves, just what That might be which would compell a man to go to such lengths of extrordinary behavior, to hide it from us? It can be quickly narrowed down to only TWO possiblities: Firstly; He has a Kotov Tree of Analysis scrolled down his legs, noting ALL hot, irrefutable & unanswerable Improvements, up to move 49, of the Petroff Defense; and the Other leg ... there on are ALL hot irrefutable & unanswerable lines and variations with which a 2800 player shall be mesmerized & compelled to enter into and attack viciously until overlooking Mate-in-3, thus maximizing psychological and OTB damages, until the opponent completely cracks, and returns to a simpler state of being as in the childlike preoccupation with personal physical processes of self & others ... Whilest gibbering away, much sound and fury, signifying Another Goose-egg and he can make an omelette. *** OR Secondly, he IS hiding some very knobby-kneed "chicken-legs" ... *** In either case, a SAD and clearcut case of Cheating. # CheckMate
♡ 97 ( +1 | -1 ) I am no GM...and Hiarcs analyzing for 20 minutes on a 3.4G P4 disagreed with only seven of my moves in a 53 move game with Zoltantor. The last book move was given as move nine. That is 84% compliance with the computers first choice and after reflection I still like my seven moves better than the computer's. It would be interesting to have a strong GM examine the game in question and report on the 26% of the moves where GM Kramnik played differently than the computer.
This would only be a little suspicious if the moves that agreed with the computer were of nearly equal choices and even then, picking the best of nearly equal choices is one of the areas where strong humans are still better than the bots.
Evidence of cheating isn't in percentage of compliance with a bots moves, it is in percentage of compliance with a bots mistakes! A teacher may suspect cheating when two students get the same WRONG answer.
♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 ) I think FIDE should put a stop to this nonsense and take measures to shut up Danailov, he's embarassing us all with his antics. It would be interesting to see what Topalov thinks of all this.
♡ 23 ( +1 | -1 ) Sorry for GK censoring the word a-s-s in my previous post.
Danailov's strategy seems clear: maybe he can upset Kramnik again and get him to forfeit another game.
Danailov is a shining example of why you should never concede to terrorists.
♡ 215 ( +1 | -1 ) Samer and samer ...In a past thread bogg (howdy) mentioned the facts of life about, how could a player avoid some computer lines anymore when so many authors probably utilize an e-box of some kind to write their books. So with that in mind, I was just wondering if it will not soon be (if not already) where even books by some strongest GM's, on an opening, will be developed primarily from computer moves; only having to intercede when the author has something better. And then GM games where moves were traditionally gleaned from, for such as MCO et al, will begin to see increasing numbers of human GM's using computer suggested lines in their otb events ... *** And thus a vicious cycle develops. Someone then puts those games into publication. Maybe then, besides more otb players picking up those moves, some other programmer may then use that GM's suggestions aor moves to BOOK their own Chess Program ... whom some Chess author then uses to help write his opening monogram ..... }8-)) ****** OF course, then there will be Purely computer moves too, that do not originate from an opening book programmed into it by some GM or IM, rather from the engines own calculations. And I wonder how much change in theory is happening now from such moves being introduce!? It would be quite interesting to know some kind of percentage on that. Maybe that would be possible to calculate if one had a d-base which would show new lines vs prior ones of theory ... and be able make a ratio of that. Appears someone would have to be really up to date with their d-bases theory tho, and even then, perhaps the New theory would seem rather endless !? * * * I must admit to still enjoying some TN aor improvement, home baked by some GM & sprung upon the Chess world + plus unsuspecting opponent, just about more than anything to be seen in Chess play.
♡ 154 ( +1 | -1 ) Scrap the match...... I've finally realised, chessplayers don't like matches. Apart from anything else, it brings out the worst in them. Look at the matches in chess history that have characterised by bitter acrimony. Recall the Reshevsky match in the early '60s (I can't recall the opponent - Larry Evans, maybe?) that had to abandoned. The sillinesses over the Karpov-Korchnoi matches, and the fiasco that began the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match. And that players don't like matches is demonstrated by Capablanca's and Lasker's avoiding matches for as long as possible. Having lost his title, Capablanca recovered some interest in playing, but Alekhine made damned sure that if he had to play chess matches they would be easy ones. Fischer made sure he never played another match after winning the WCC. That one with Spassky in the 1990s was just a piece of nostalgia that was of interest only to Fischer and maybe Spassky. This present shambles is of a piece. Kramnik has been good enough to offer Topalov a game odds, and still Topalov's moaning (I think it is resonable to suppose that Topalov's people speak with Topalov's voice!). Of course Kramnik's hiding something. My guess is that the frequent visits to the Crystal Palace were designed to awaken the suspicions of the Topalov team, and that it was Kramnik's people what slipped Topalov the video of the event. Then they just sat back and let Topalov do the rest. Yeah, right...
♡ 106 ( +1 | -1 ) ionadowman . . .Unless there was Another acrimonious & unfinished Reshevsky match of that era, then his honored opponent was none other than ever-amiable Robert J. Fischer. Beneficial honing for Bobby's match technique no doubt... learning by the Spassky match how to Abandon it multiple times without Really needing to Leave. Always the innovator. ********** Also wrongly, Danailov has mentioned Kramnick as 'too young' for prostate trouble; & that over 20 years he has not noticed Vladmir having that ... or bad health. And that he was watching Kramnick for the 5 hours on the airplane & did not feel that Vladmir abused any toilet facilites There. No suspicious overutilization of the Loo on that 5 hour flight. And contrary to the needs claimed by the Kramnick camp, HE noted that Vladmir in Fact, Hardly went to the Loo AT ALL thruout the flight. And furthermore, Hardly Drank anything the whole time Either! [ Hey,ASTOUNDING. Ain't it Funny how THAT works ?!? hmmm ... ] * * * * * * And with such as that, I begin to wonder if Mngr.D Mi indeed, in Fact, lack a profound grasp of the obvious ? ?!
♡ 15 ( +1 | -1 ) Personally . . .. . . my metabolism speeds up during games and I both drink more and (consequently) visit the Little Masters' Room more. It's not uncommon in my experience!!
♡ 172 ( +1 | -1 ) ccmcacollister......Thanks Craig... My memory said Fischer, but somehow it didn't seem likely. Possibly that unlikelihood was due to the match ending abruptly before it had fairly begun. It should have been seen as a portent. I note in a recent interview that Kasparov reckoned Spassky didn't help his own chances in the 1972 match by being so complaisant. My own view is that Spassky probably didn't think FIDE would roll over so easily, and wanted to be the good guy (which I gather he is). People tend to forget, maybe, that Fischer had never beaten Spassky until that match, and game 1 didn't augur well. After game 2, I am convinced Spassky thought the match was over (as it bally ought to have been!). It took him half the rest of the match to get back up to speed. We generally agree that Fischer probably still would have won an honest match, but I don't reckon it would have been a gimme. I see the Topalov crowd is accusing Kramnik of using a Fritz program. Look Fide ought to tell these people flatly: produce the evidence, or we'll treat you lot as guilty of the charge you are levelling at your opponent. I don't know a whole lot about chess engines, but the statistics adduced by Topalov's mob don't look convincing. I would have expected a higher ratio of agreement at Kramnik's level. In any case, such stats have no meaning whatever unless measured against the performance of other players, including Topalov himself. That Topalov's stats might be rather different from Kramnik's oughtn't to be very surprising at that: he's losing... How did Fritz miss the mate in 3 in Game 1??
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 ) If anyone with a chess program has the time and inclination, how many of Topalov's moves from the same point in the games match?
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 ) 5-all.It's five games a piece now, I really hope Kramnik wins even with Topalov's one game odds he seems to have.
♡ 90 ( +1 | -1 ) Kramnik...... has emerged from all this as the good guy, and seems now to have a lot of support. Before the match, many had pinned their hopes on Topalov as the more exciting player. ccmcacollister, I think it was, described him as 'Tal-like', an epithet that will always go far to bring on the side of the player so described. And it does seem to be true that Topalov is the one who's trying new stuff in this match. Yet over all lies the shadow of unsubstantiated accusations levelled by his team, and the "game odds" that he has been gifted as a result. I was pleased to see Kramnik draw level after the hammerings he has taken recently, and I hope he wins outright. (Reminds me of the first Muhammed Ali - Joe Frazier fight, in which Ali would get hurt, ride out the pain and the pressure, then come back strongly. Win or lose, that fight 'proved' Ali, for mine. Win or lose, maybe this match will 'prove' Kramnik). Cheers -
♡ 161 ( +1 | -1 ) Unfortunately, the brutal poundings Ali took in his fights with Frazier & Foreman also contributed to the neurological damage he now suffers from. I'm not sure what the analogy in Kramnik's case would be. :)
I was certainly one of those rooting for Topalov at the beginning of this match. He has an exciting playing style which I would have likened to Kasparov, but perhaps Tal is a better comparison.
However, his off-board behavior in this match has been that of a spoiled brat who needs to be taken to the woodshed. And I don't buy the assertions of those who are all too willing to help him pass the buck to others. Yes, Danailov and much of the FIDE leadership are arguably even worse than Topalov. But if Topalov had even an ounce of integrity, he'd take full responsibility for this despicable episode, issue a formal apology, and renounce the title in disgrace.
I hope Kramnik kicks Topalov's sorry little Bulgarian butt in these last two games. But I have a bad feeling Topalov will win. Then his bratty, selfish, unsportsmanlike behavior will have been rewarded.
Why does the top level of our sport seem to be filled with brats and babies? Is it because all great chess players start out as socially maladjusted geeks? Has it always been this way, even before Fischer (arguably the Brat Prince) came along? Or were the chess masters of bygone eras more gentlemanly and polite? We seem to live in an age in which public figures of all sorts have little or no integrity; are modern grandmasters just more of the same? Is this all just a symptom of the decay of Western Civilization?
♡ 6 ( +1 | -1 ) As for Topalovnot all artists are chess players but all chess players are artists!
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 ) WhatI think would help a lot, on the somewhat "scratched surface" of Topalov, was if he announce the 5th game, was to be replayed. This anouncement, should come before the start of the next game!
Best wishes Cairo
♡ 171 ( +1 | -1 ) zenbum...... One of the problems of have with chess matches is that they seem more than once to have knocked about physically (or physiologically) one of the participants. McDonnell died shortly after his matches with LaBourdonnais, as did Zukertort after his WC match against Steinitz, both ending the matches with their health broken. It is generally agreed that Karpov lacked Kasparov's physical robustness, but that the former survived "mens sana in corpore sano" the series of tough K-K matches is testament to his genuine toughness. I agree with cairo that Topalov could, by requesting the 5th game be replayed, buff up the patina of poor sportsmanship (at the very least!) that tarnishes his image, but that such an act is unlikely. I don't think all that much has changed over the years, except that top sportsmen these days seem to care less about how their character seems than how their physical appearance looks. Having won his WC, Alekhine made sure he never played Capablanca again for the title. Lasker and Capablanca, both, seem to have been reluctant to accept challenges as well. Recall Lasker's short match with Schlecter - 10 games, and Schlecter had to win by 2 (10-8) to take out the title. Fischer demanded the same conditions (but counting wins only) for his title defences - a 1.5 points' advantage... There are all sorts of ways off the chessboard of securing for yourself an advantage. The Fischer Gambit was a TN in 1972, the FIDE zwischenzug in 1985 and its new variant in 2006 will no doubt enter the realms of chess theory. Dump the matches.
♡ 47 ( +1 | -1 ) The toilet gambitWhat is not so disturbing to me is that the losing players side should produce such a plumb, but that FIDE would act upon it in more than a gesture. (It is common for such to try to put off stride the leader, aor garner some publicity) Putting Kramnick out of the WC for goodness sake. And then to allow a situation where a game point might actually be awarded, is disgraceful. Perhaps they are right who claim that it is FIDE that needs flushed out ....!?
♡ 13 ( +1 | -1 ) Up until now...... I've been more prepared than most to cut FIDE a bit of slack, but but it's beginning to look as though we need a lot more of the roll... >|-(